Talk:That We Can Play/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sparklism (talk · contribs) 11:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. Although it's a pretty interesting read, I think it falls some way short of GA status as it stands. I'll post a detailed review over the coming days, and hopefully we can get it closer to GA. Thanks, and good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 11:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If there are repeated references, that could most likely be from the close paraphrasing another editor was doing for the DYK nomination. I'll promise i'll fix this. 和DITOR E tails 12:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First look

OK, I've had a skim through and here are my initial thoughts:

By my reckoning, there have been 32 edits by four different editors to the article in the past 48 hours. Thirty two! Do you think this article stable enough for GAR?
- They're planning to close the DYK nomination. It should be stable enough right now. 和DITOR E tails 17:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page discusses close paraphrasing concerns that were raised just yesterday
- And were quickly fixed from there. Everything should be OK now.和DITOR E tails 17:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section does not summarise the article well enough, per WP:LEAD
- Should cover all main aspects of the article by now. 和DITOR E tails 17:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's probably enough critical content for a 'reception' section, rather than just including it in the 'release' section
- Done 和DITOREtails 17:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, it looks like this hasn't been done. Don't worry about it now, though; it's best to wait until I've given a proper detailed review. Thanks:) — sparklism ^hey! 15:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, I don't think this article is ready to be reviewed as it is still being worked on. I won't fail it straight off (though it really could be an immediate failure per WP:GA?, due to instability), since I'd rather agree a way forward with you. In short, I believe there are the makings of a GA here, but if you're still working on it then the best thing to do would be to withdraw this nomination, fix the issues raised in your own time and then renominate. What do you think? — sparklism ^hey! 16:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll give it a closer look. It may take a couple of days before I post a detailed review. Thanks! — sparklism ^hey! 17:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed review

I'm having a closer look now, and this is what I've found so far:

Lead

This might sound odd, but I'm not convinced that we should mention 'Ford & Lopitan' here, since it isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article. Could you just link 'Games' to Games (band) instead? That will redirect to F&L anyway. Those brackets look unsightly in the first sentence of the lead.
- Done 和DITOR E tails 00:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that Daniel Lopitan, also known as Oneohtrix Point Never scans too well for the lead either. How about going simply with Daniel Lopitan or, even better, Daniel Lopitan (created as a redirect)?
- Done 和DITOR E tails 00:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
sixth grade doesn't translate well outside of the US - I'm in the UK, and I have no idea what this means. Is it in Secondary school?
- Fixed 和DITOR E tails 00:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea where in the world their apartment was located? Was it Massachusetts.?
- A specific location of this apartment has not been said by a reliable source yet. ~~
You might want to link synthesizers and sequencers here
- Done 和DITOR E tails 00:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
released on the label Hippos in Tanks → "released on the Hippos in Tanks label"
- Done 和DITOR E tails 00:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a bit of a stretch to say it was highly praised by critics, since there aren't too many reviews around
- Fixed 00:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
We should describe who GvsB are, in order to give the reader some context
- Done 和DITOR E tails 00:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background and composition

Same issue here with 'sixth-grade'
- Fixed 和DITOR E tails 00:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The last line of the second paragraph is sourced to ref #1, but I can't see anything in that ref that relates to the sentence in question (no worries, as it's also correctly sourced to ref #2)
- This might've been due to SojoQ's edits, but Fixed 和DITOR E tails 00:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With their musical roots set in 1980s "power pop", Ford and Lopatin make reference to that sound and style in the way they wrote, recorded and mixed That We Can Play. I can see what this sentence is saying, but it doesn't feel right for a GA. How about something simpler, along the lines of "Ford and Lopatin made reference to the sound and style of 1980s "power pop" when they recorded That We Can Play"?
- Fixed 和DITOR E tails 19:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should we wikilink keytar and arpeggiators?
- Not sure how wikilinking of instrument names on Wikipedia works, but I'll do so just to be safe. 和DITOR E tails 23:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and the like feels a liitle informal for a GA - how about "and other 1980s-style instruments"? Or even a bit of a rejig "everything expected in 80's music and is executed correctly, including bass lines, strings, keytar and arpeggiators."?
- Done 和DITOR E tails 23:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
80's music → "1980s music" for consistency
- Done 和DITOR E tails 23:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pitchfork Media should be italicized
- Done, although I've seen several articles that didn't italicize the webzine name before. This might've been because the publication is only online, and not in print, but I could be wrong. 和DITOR E tails 23:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Songs

Law & Order should be italicized, and described for context
- Done 和DITOR E tails 23:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should describe who Laurel Halo & Ratatat are
Done 和DITOR E tails 22:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Pitchfork review doesn't mention disco, but the statement because of its upbeat rhythms with disco underpinnings is sourced to that review - I think this should be also sourced to the Fact review
- Fixed this. This might've been messed up during SojoQ's edits. 和DITOR E tails 23:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"MIDI Drift" is stylized with caps here, but as "Midi Drift" in the track listing - best just to stick to one format
- Done 和DITOR E tails 23:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, need to italicize Pitchfork (and really it should be Pitchfork Media for consistency)
- Done 和DITOR E tails 18:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should also describe who Bananarama, Secret Service and Gatekeeper are
- Done 和DITOR E tails 22:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should the to be capitalized in "It Was Never Meant To Be"? (same for the track listing section)
- No clue, but that's how Ford and Lopatin decided to format it. 和DITOREtails 22:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, there's a guideline for this over at MOS:CT (hint, hint) — sparklism ^hey! 21:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Games's own "It Was Never Meant To Be" - it's their remix, but it's not their song, is it?
- Fixed. Again, this was a screw-up on SojoQ's part. 和DITOR E tails 22:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Release

Half of this section is about the reviews, so I'd title it "Release and reception"
- Done 和DITOR E tails 19:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
again, we should describe who GvsB are (and wikilink)
- Done 和DITOR E tails 18:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and describe who Hudson Mohawke is
- Done 和DITOR E tails 18:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
a remix for the song → "a remix of "Strawberry Skies"", because two songs are mentioned in the previous sentence
- Done 和DITOR E tails 18:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and it's forthcoming on Hippos in Tanks is probably not needed in that quote from Fact
We should wikilink Hippos in Tanks here, as it's the first use since the lead
- Done 和DITOR E tails 18:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
positively received from critics → "positively received by critics"
- Done 和DITOR E tails 22:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the formatting is wrong for "Everything Is Working" and "Heartlands"
- You're right. For some odd reason, SojoQ decided to italicize the song names, and I had to format them proper to meet Wikipedia's formatting stills. Didn't catch these! Thanks! 和DITOR E tails 00:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
rounded it out is too informal, unless you're going to point out that it is a direct quote
- Fixed 和DITOR E tails 18:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Track listing

There's a spelling mistake in the section title :)
- Oh shit!!! XD. Anyway, fixed. 和DITOR E tails 22:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All songs written and composed by Daniel Lopatin and Joel Ford. This is a bit odd, since they didn't write track #5. But I see from the liner notes that this is the way it's credited - probably best to source this statement to the liner notes you've used later
- Done 和DITOR E tails 22:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd wikilink Secret Service here, even though it's probably technically incorrect to do so (IAR, after all)
- Done 和DITOR E tails 02:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other

Images are properly licensed, and the refs are nice & tidy - good work!
I'm not convinced that we need both '2010 albums' and '2010 EPs' as categories

Summary

This is a pretty short article, but it's fairly well-written, and I don't think there are going to be too many other reliable sources that could be used to expand the article with. In short, I don't think there's going to be much more to go on, and the article makes a good job of using what's available. I'm still trawling through the details - there'll be more to come from me. Thanks :) — sparklism ^hey! 19:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a better look now, sorry it took a while. I'll take another look when you've had chance to review. Thanks :) — sparklism ^hey! 15:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, I've been a little busy too. 和DITOR E tails 00:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been busy with the article, and it's looking great! I've got a lot on IRL - I'll get back to this in a couple of days. Sorry it's become a bit drawn-out... :) — sparklism ^hey! 21:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EditorE: I've made some changes. What do you think? Thanks :) — sparklism ^hey! 16:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing looks too bad. 和DITOR E tails 15:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Doesn't look too bad to me, either ;) OK, here's my closing thoughts then:

Firstly, the version of the article that got reviewed was very different from the version that was originally submitted, mainly due to that version containing lots of close-paraphrasing issues - maybe that was a bit of a hasty submission, in hindsight. (And thanks to the editors who helped resolve this.)

Secondly, although this is a fairly short article I don't think that there's much that could be added to it - it was a fairly low-key release, and didn't garner that much attention. With that in mind, I think EditorE has done a pretty decent job of producing an article with what is available, and I believe that this article now meets the Good Article criteria. I'm promoting this to GA :) — sparklism ^hey! 15:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks. After all, good articles, and even featured articles, aren't all about length. I'll see what I can do to possibly get this up to FA status. Thanks for the review!! 和DITOR E tails 17:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]